Brent bot this article is not about gay marriage and your comment has already
been roundly debunked. It does nothing to add to the credibility of your
position to try to pull off topic and especially with arguments that have been
found to be invalid.
If I were the Family Research Council, I'd be more concerned if the
Southern Poverty Law Center and other groups of that ilk approved of what I did
than if they gave me a derogaroty label.
Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As
the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of
world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what
he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as
society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no
society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has
survived. Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands
of years on several continents, Chairman of Harvard University’s sociology
department, Pitirim Sorokin. found that virtually all political revolutions
that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in
which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of
homosexuality.When marriage loses its unique status, women and
children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships
or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as
the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a
@very concerned;The reason this group, along with others is being
labeled a hate group is because they're exporting their anti-gay agenda
overseas. They're helping to write, and pushing legislation in African
nations that permits the execution of glbt citizens of those countries. Yes,
they're actually helping to write this stuff; and then they have the nerve
to call themselves "Christian".The shooting is deplorable.
Violence is not the answer to these issues.
Let us not forget the attack on the Sikhs in their house of worship. Was that
an attack on religion? Republican legislators, Michelle Bachman for example,
has been perpetuating fear and paranoia that Muslim extremists have infiltrated
upper levels of our government.
About the shooting itself, attempted murder, whether done by a liberal OR
conservative, is unacceptable. As to my previous comment, I am not
familiar enough with the FRC to speak authoritatively on whether it employs
methods of true hate group. If it espouses non-violent, traditional family
values and recognizes or proposes that homosexuality is a sin, I believe that is
aprotected by the first amendment.In fact, protected by both parts
of the First Amendment: the exercise of free speech and freedom from government
restrictions on religion. If we want to recognize homosexuality as a *sin*,
what is that to you. If you truly believe it is OK, why bother with what we
say. Why lable us hate groups because of our beliefs.Of course I
don't stand for violence, but why the anger and hatred against the FRC.
Why do you want to change our sense of morality. To change millenea-old and
time-proven values and pracices. Aren't we free to believe as we wish, to
vote as we wish, to try to influence others in what we believe is a critical
struggle between good and evil, thriving and dwindling, societal vibrancy and
Aside from the shooting, which is abhorable, I'm surprised that the Family
Research Council has been labled a hate group. It's amazing that an
organization that promotes traditional family values would merit that
distinction in some circles.I believe it is another example in which
good is called bad, and bad is called good.
The only "war on religion" in this country is the war BY religion.
S0-called "Christian" religions demanding that their own version take
precedence over any/all others.The shooter was a nut who should
never have had a gun in the first place.One can determine whether or
not a group is a "hate group" by their actions. FRC's actions
place them squarely in that category. The First Amendment gives religions the
right to practice without government interference, it does not give them the
right to use their religious beliefs to deny freedom to other American Citizens.
Of course the FRC is going to frame this as a war on religion. Was
it a war on religion when Jim Adkisson entered a Unitarian Church and
open-fired, killing 2 because he wanted to kill "liberals?"Was it a war on religion when Dr. Tiller was killed inside church? The FRC is not a religious organization. It is a political organization which
uses religion. I would imagine then, if the FRC wants to blame the
Southern Poverty Law Center, then we should also blame the right-wing
commentators who inspired Dr.Tiller's killer and Jim Adkisson too.
The man with the gun was motivated by mental illness, not political ideology.
Why is it that people like Tony Perkins simply can't resist politicizing
everything and anything even when something this serious happens? The Southern
Poverty Law Center spent decades bringing the murderer of Civil Rights Leader
Medgar Evers to justice. They are hardly out there advocating violence.
If they want to claim that FRC's designation as a 'hate group' is
to blame for this shooting, then they must also believe that they are
responsible for all of the women's clinic bombings and murders of doctors
who provide abortions, for they're always throwing about the term "baby
killers" in reference to these doctors and clinics.
This has nothing to do with a war on religion. It's just another sad story
of a nutcase who had no business owning a gut getting one and using it
inappropriately. It's also a sad result of the extremists on either
side--conservative or liberal--spreading any lie or half-truth that will advance